The dilemma

Mary is in the market for a new car that works in the urban-commuter role while giving her the flexibility to take the less-travelled path (i.e. dirt roads and national-park trails) on the weekend. It must have an automatic transmission, a boot that can swallow up sporting gear and a back seat with sufficient growing space for her two teenage children.

The budget

Up to $37,000.

Advertisement

The shortlist

This sounds like an obvious job for an SUV, but probably not those of the city-sized or front-wheel-drive variety.

And given Mary says nothing of needing to cart more than four occupants, we can probably count out large seven-seaters too. With no mention of truly serious off-road exploits either, we can also probably strike heavy-duty 4WDs off the list.

That process of deduction – and Mary’s budget – leaves us pointing squarely at the medium-sized SUV segment, where there’s still a potentially bewildering array of choice.

So we’ll sift out the contenders now that aren’t remarkably generous on the boot-space front (Ford Kuga, Mazda CX-5, VW Tiguan) or that roomy in the back (Hyundai ix35, Jeep Cherokee, Skoda Yeti). Other options, like Kia’s Sportage and Toyota’s RAV4, don’t make quite as much sense as this trio below.

Honda CR-V 4WD, from $32,790

This Honda has one of the medium SUV segment’s best thought-out cabins, roomiest back seats and biggest boots (566 litres).

Other enticements include its strong value and there’s a five-year/100,000km capped-price servicing regime for peace of mind (average annual cost $529, or up to $674 if you trip up the km/age-related "adaptive" servicing items over that timespan).

The CR-V’s ride and handling, though, are merely good rather than great. With its reactive AWD system and mediocre 170mm ground clearance, it doesn’t tickle benchmarks for off-tarmac nous.

Nor is it the most relaxed or economical performer due to a combination of the 2.4-litre petrol engine’s unremarkable low-rev response and an old-school five-speed auto. More driveable and thrifty diesel versions are better but break Mary’s budget.

Nissan X-Trail 4WD, from $33,980

This Nissan is hard to separate from the Honda in terms of back seat space (it’s similarly spacious), boot space (550 litres) and the general user-friendliness of its cabin (it’s well thought-out and has plenty of stash spots).

With service costs capped to an average of $620 annually for six years/120,000km, it’s six of one and half a dozen of the other on the ownership front.

But the X-Trail’s 2.5-litre petrol engine/continuously variable automatic (CVT) drivetrain – while similar in terms of outright performance – is more driveable and economical. A generally forgiving ride, good ground clearance (210mm) and effective multi-mode all-wheel-drive system mean it’s a bit more at home when the tarmac runs out.

It squanders some of that advantage, however, with a space-saver spare tyre and higher prices than its rivals. It isn't the sharpest-steering contender on the black stuff either.

Subaru Forester, from $32,990

This Subaru has a smaller boot than its rivals (422 litres) and the least tempting capped-price servicing regime (three years/75,000km, average annual cost $729).

The performance and refinement of its 2.5-litre petrol engine/CVT auto drivetrain, too, leaves the most to be desired and it’s no benchmark through the bends. Like the Honda there’s a driveable, thrifty diesel but it’s not appropriate here (in this case due to its mandatory manual gearbox).

The Forester’s roomy back seat hits the bullseye, though, and the boot makes very good use of what space it has. Fuel-saving features like auto stop/start help it to achieve this group’s best economy and its plush ride, full-time AWD system, generous ground clearance (220mm) and full-size spare also add up to the best off-tarmac prospects.

Drive recommends

All of these cars are capable of doing the job asked of them but the Honda and Subaru tend more to the extremes. The former really works in the commuter role, at the cost of being less proficient in the bush. The latter struggles a little around town but comes alive out of it.

The Nissan, contrastingly, settles comfortably into both urban-commuter and weekender roles. That takes it to a decisive, if not exactly dominant, victory here, albeit one tainted slightly by its space-saver spare. But having to deal with that issue infrequently is probably better than living with the full-time implications of a car caught out of its comfort zone.

25 comments so far

Why do motoring writers never consider the Grand Vitara when talking about mid-size SUV's?

Commenter

Mozz

Location

Date and time

August 20, 2014, 5:29PM

Totally agree...... a very under rated vehicle, very reliable, capable off road and reasonably priced. Not the best handling vehicle around but neither is the X Trail, which also feels somewhat underpowered when loaded up a bit.

Commenter

Peter S

Location

Cassilis

Date and time

August 20, 2014, 6:12PM

Good question Mozz, could it be that they have blinkers on and are unable to see either side of the common group of vehicles, or maybe Suzuki are not trendy enough for them. Possibly Suzuki is not in their database when searching for answers.The suzuki should be coverered in mid size SUV groups as it has been around for some time and is a solid vehicle. So how come motoring writers????????

It appears obvious that the three manufacturers mentioned are the ones that go out of their way to get the motoring journalist on side for a favorable report. There appears to be quite a number of SUV makes that do not rate or do not know how to promote their product.

Commenter

Yalloak

Location

Melbourne

Date and time

August 20, 2014, 8:00PM

I would rule out SUVs, totally. Their centre of gravity is higher, and in a high-speed accident, eg. on the freeway, you're more likely to roll than if you're in a sedan. Be wary of statistics; they can be skewed by shopping centre/school run dingle data.